lefty Bill Maher slams media for censoring Hunter Biden laptop

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Ron passing a bill in the state where Republicans have been charge since 1999 passed this bill to protect
Heterosexual is comical it’s not even taught now k-3rd grade


teachings on sexual orientation or gender identity would be banned “in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.”


For starters, criticism that the “Don’t Say Gay” bill does not in fact say “gay” anywhere in its text is true.

does, however, contain the terms “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” each twice.

But legal experts say that whether the bill prohibits the word “gay” itself is a “distraction.”

In the same way that critical race theory isn’t being taught in schools, that hasn’t stopped people like the governor of Florida from deploying the term ‘critical race theory’ in efforts to engage in certain kinds of political maneuverings,” said Charlton Copeland, a professor at the University of Miami School of Law

Critics have said the language of this provision could open districts and educators to lawsuits from parents who believe any conversation about LGBTQ people or issues to be inappropriate, regardless of their child’s age.

Legal experts agree,


So like I’ve said these. Bill are all based on a lie a fantasy constructed by the GOP and fed to the base as truth and DeSantis, who is widely seen as eyeing a run for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination and has signaled his support for the measure several times,

It’s all an election Stunt
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

how could you possibly know what’s not taught in florida?

“it’s an election stunt.”

kind of like passing a federal
law against lynching? is there an epidemic of
lynchings that missed?

are there any states where it’s currently legal to lynch blacks, and the feds needed to step in?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

how could you possibly know what’s not taught in florida?

“it’s an election stunt.”

kind of like passing a federal
law against lynching? is there an epidemic of
lynchings that missed?

are there any states where it’s currently legal to lynch blacks, and the feds needed to step in?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Children who know about sex know when someone is trying to abuse/groom them. Every parent should be talking to their kids about sex. My kids used proper anatomy words so if they ever came home with a private part nickname, I would have known that someone had been talking to them inappropriately.

Why would anyone object to a law against lynching?
Afraid you’ll lose the right to lynch?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Children who know about sex know when someone is trying to abuse/groom them. Every parent should be talking to their kids about sex. My kids used proper anatomy words so if they ever came home with a private part nickname, I would have known that someone had been talking to them inappropriately.

Why would anyone object to a law against lynching?
Afraid you’ll lose the right to lynch?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Should there be a law specifically against stabbing? Or against bashing heads in with a baseball bat? Should there be a separate law for each method of murder? How about one law that covers all forms?

Oh yeah, we already have that.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Children who know about sex know when someone is trying to abuse/groom them. Every parent should be talking to their kids about sex. My kids used proper anatomy words so if they ever came home with a private part nickname, I would have known that someone had been talking to them inappropriately.

Why would anyone object to a law against lynching?
Afraid you’ll lose the right to lynch?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that’s the parents job, to decide when their kid is ready for that.

you can teach kids not to be too trusting with strangers, without discussing the pros and cons of different kinds of gender identity. the FL law prohibits discussion of gender identity and personal
sexual choices. it doesn’t prevent all safety discussions.

you’re misinformed or lying.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

that’s the parents job, to decide when their kid is ready for that.

you can teach kids not to be too trusting with strangers, without discussing the pros and cons of different kinds of gender identity. the FL law prohibits discussion of gender identity and personal
sexual choices. it doesn’t prevent all safety discussions.

you’re misinformed or lying.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Floriduh’s latest political bill is just the resurrection of an old trope.

The bill’s proponents insist that the measure has nothing to do with harming the dignity of gay individuals but rather is aimed at ensuring age-appropriate sexual education. A series of tweets by Governor DeSantis’s press secretary, Christina Pushaw, however, suggests otherwise. “The bill that liberals inaccurately call ‘Don’t Say Gay’ would be more accurately described as an Anti-Grooming Bill,” Ms. Pushaw wrote. “Grooming” is a term for the tactics sexual predators use to manipulate and exploit their victims. “If you’re against the Anti-Grooming Bill,” she said in a second tweet, “you are probably a groomer or at least you don’t denounce the grooming of 4-8 year old children.”

The conflation of gay people, and gay men in particular, with pedophiles is an old and pernicious stereotype. In 1988 the British Parliament passed a measure preventing local authorities from “promoting homosexuality” or “the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.” Known as Section 28, it stayed on the books until 2003. Ten years later, the Russian Duma unanimously passed legislation “for the purpose of protecting children from information advocating for a denial of traditional family values” prohibiting the dissemination of “propaganda” of nontraditional sexual relationships.

While branding gay people as child molesters has been a staple of right-wing rhetoric around the world, there has long existed a strain of American libertarian conservatism that deems the legal enshrinement of such prejudices as an invasion of privacy and a dangerous enhancement of state power. During a similar episode of anti-gay moral panic, none other than Ronald Reagan — whose record on L.G.B.T. issues is most often defined by his shameful inaction around H.I.V. and AIDS during his presidency — turned to his libertarian roots to thwart such bigotry, rather than promote it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Floriduh’s latest political bill is just the resurrection of an old trope.

The bill’s proponents insist that the measure has nothing to do with harming the dignity of gay individuals but rather is aimed at ensuring age-appropriate sexual education. A series of tweets by Governor DeSantis’s press secretary, Christina Pushaw, however, suggests otherwise. “The bill that liberals inaccurately call ‘Don’t Say Gay’ would be more accurately described as an Anti-Grooming Bill,” Ms. Pushaw wrote. “Grooming” is a term for the tactics sexual predators use to manipulate and exploit their victims. “If you’re against the Anti-Grooming Bill,” she said in a second tweet, “you are probably a groomer or at least you don’t denounce the grooming of 4-8 year old children.”

The conflation of gay people, and gay men in particular, with pedophiles is an old and pernicious stereotype. In 1988 the British Parliament passed a measure preventing local authorities from “promoting homosexuality” or “the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.” Known as Section 28, it stayed on the books until 2003. Ten years later, the Russian Duma unanimously passed legislation “for the purpose of protecting children from information advocating for a denial of traditional family values” prohibiting the dissemination of “propaganda” of nontraditional sexual relationships.

While branding gay people as child molesters has been a staple of right-wing rhetoric around the world, there has long existed a strain of American libertarian conservatism that deems the legal enshrinement of such prejudices as an invasion of privacy and a dangerous enhancement of state power. During a similar episode of anti-gay moral panic, none other than Ronald Reagan — whose record on L.G.B.T. issues is most often defined by his shameful inaction around H.I.V. and AIDS during his presidency — turned to his libertarian roots to thwart such bigotry, rather than promote it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

read the bill, then tell us what’s bigoted against gays.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

read the bill, then tell us what’s bigoted against gays.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

To persuade him to oppose Proposition 6, Mr. Mixner used Mr. Reagan’s own language: “Anarchy,” he told the former governor, who had used that word to describe campus unrest at Berkeley, would be unleashed in classrooms statewide as students lodged spurious charges of homosexuality against their teachers. Disciplinary proceedings would in turn spark court challenges, and the power of state authorities over school boards would increase — a development that ought to raise alarms with any advocate of local control, as Mr. Reagan was. Finally, endless witch hunts against teachers would swell administrative budgets and legal costs, bugbears of every small-government conservative.

Mr. Reagan, Mr. Mixner told me four decades later, “almost grinned” as he heard the case, “like he was looking for an excuse not to support these people.”

A few days later, Mr. Mixner’s gambit paid off. “I don’t approve of teaching a so-called gay lifestyle in our schools,” Mr. Reagan announced. But Proposition 6 “has the potential of infringing on basic rights of privacy and perhaps even constitutional rights.” He made a more substantive case in his syndicated column published a week before the election, refuting the claim that gays had a greater propensity to be child molesters and the canard that they joined the teaching profession to recruit impressionable youngsters.

On Election Day, voters rejected Proposition 6, 58 percent to 42 percent, a nearly exact reversal of what the polls indicated just two months earlier. “That one single endorsement — Ronald Reagan’s — turned the polls around,” Mr. Briggs groused after the election. The Rev. Jerry Falwell, then emerging as a leader of an increasingly powerful voting bloc, evangelical Christians, declared that Mr. Reagan had taken “the political rather than the moral route” and would “have to face the music from Christian voters two years from now.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

To persuade him to oppose Proposition 6, Mr. Mixner used Mr. Reagan’s own language: “Anarchy,” he told the former governor, who had used that word to describe campus unrest at Berkeley, would be unleashed in classrooms statewide as students lodged spurious charges of homosexuality against their teachers. Disciplinary proceedings would in turn spark court challenges, and the power of state authorities over school boards would increase — a development that ought to raise alarms with any advocate of local control, as Mr. Reagan was. Finally, endless witch hunts against teachers would swell administrative budgets and legal costs, bugbears of every small-government conservative.

Mr. Reagan, Mr. Mixner told me four decades later, “almost grinned” as he heard the case, “like he was looking for an excuse not to support these people.”

A few days later, Mr. Mixner’s gambit paid off. “I don’t approve of teaching a so-called gay lifestyle in our schools,” Mr. Reagan announced. But Proposition 6 “has the potential of infringing on basic rights of privacy and perhaps even constitutional rights.” He made a more substantive case in his syndicated column published a week before the election, refuting the claim that gays had a greater propensity to be child molesters and the canard that they joined the teaching profession to recruit impressionable youngsters.

On Election Day, voters rejected Proposition 6, 58 percent to 42 percent, a nearly exact reversal of what the polls indicated just two months earlier. “That one single endorsement — Ronald Reagan’s — turned the polls around,” Mr. Briggs groused after the election. The Rev. Jerry Falwell, then emerging as a leader of an increasingly powerful voting bloc, evangelical Christians, declared that Mr. Reagan had taken “the political rather than the moral route” and would “have to face the music from Christian voters two years from now.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

not sure what any of that no
sense had to do with the bill.

for the second time, point to language that’s actually in the bill, which is bigoted against gays, please?

you guys keep saying it’s anti gay, i keep asking which specific language is anti gay, then you go on some rant.

which means even you know it’s not anti gay.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device